If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Military: The administration thanks the troops for their service by failing to comply with a law requiring that it help soldiers deployed overseas cast ballots in their home states.

The administration has taken various states to court to block voter ID laws on the grounds it will disenfranchise voters. But it has no qualms about the disenfranchisement of military voters overseas through its failure to comply with and enforce the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The law acknowledges the difficulties caused by time and distance for deployed soldiers in exercising the right to vote they put their lives on the line to protect. One of the key provisions required each military branch to create an installation voting assistance office (IVAO) for every military base outside an immediate combat zone.

Last week, however, the Pentagon's inspector general reported that attempts to locate and contact IVAO offices at overseas military installations failed about half the time.

"Results were clear. Our attempts to contact IVAOs failed about 50% of the time," the inspector general reported. "We concluded the Services had not established all the IVAOs as intended by the MOVE Act because, among other issues, the funding was not available."

The estimated cost of establishing functioning IVAOs at all overseas military bases not in combat zones is estimated at between $15 million and $20 million a year. We wasted $530 million on Solyndra but can't afford a relative pittance to ensure our soldiers are not disenfranchised.

An administration that constantly talks about voter disenfranchisement appears unconcerned that a study by the nonpartisan Military Voters Protection Project found that in 2008 less than 20% of 2.5 million military voters successfully voted by absentee ballot. In 2010, that participation shrank to a scandalous 5%. We need to encourage military voting and make it easier. >>>

The law also requires that states mail absentee ballots to their servicemen 45 days before an election so there's enough time to return and count them. The Department of Justice can file suit to ensure compliance but in 2010 was content to grant failing states waivers. As a result, about one-third of overseas troops who wanted to vote in 2010 couldn't, according to testimony at a House committee hearing in February.

The administration showed its true appreciation for military service when on July 17 the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in that swing state to strike down part of a state law governing voting by members of the military that gives them three extra days to cast their ballots. The Democrats objected that it discriminated against nonmilitary voters.

The National Defense Committee, a veterans organization, notes that "for each of the last three years, the Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the president and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote."

An administration that constantly talks about voter disenfranchisement appears unconcerned that a study by the nonpartisan Military Voters Protection Project found that in 2008 less than 20% of 2.5 million military voters successfully voted by absentee ballot. In 2010, that participation shrank to a scandalous 5%.

It would be interesting to know what the voting levels are for similar non-military demographics.

Originally Posted by Janice

We need to encourage military voting and make it easier.

Depending upon to whom "we" refers, actually "we" don't need to encourage anyone to vote. Part of our democratic process is that individuals choose to make the effort to vote; those who don't are also impacting the political process. What we need to do is to make sure that the military have access to absentee ballots sufficiently in advance of the election so that they can vote and have their votes counted by election night. The real risk here, and perhaps part of the turn out problem, is that the voters will feel like the election is over and the winner declared before their votes are even counted.

It would be interesting to know what the voting levels are for similar non-military demographics.

Generally, about 50-80%% of registered voters vote in presidential elections.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Depending upon to whom "we" refers, actually "we" don't need to encourage anyone to vote. Part of our democratic process is that individuals choose to make the effort to vote; those who don't are also impacting the political process. What we need to do is to make sure that the military have access to absentee ballots sufficiently in advance of the election so that they can vote and have their votes counted by election night. The real risk here, and perhaps part of the turn out problem, is that the voters will feel like the election is over and the winner declared before their votes are even counted.

This is true, but when we are dealing with other constituencies, the left demands that we encourage participation through programs that are designed to facilitate registration (Motor Voter Act, for example) or through the elimination of all but the most basic means of eliminating illegal voters. In addition, they use public funds to mobilize their constituencies in the name of maximizing voter participation, when it is really just a partisan vote drive. I have personally seen the Democratic Party in NYC send city buses to housing projects in order to ensure maximum turnout among welfare recipients. I've also seen the Democrats take deliberate actions to disenfranchise military voters, such as the memo that they circulated in 2000 on how to disqualify military ballots.

The Military Times released the results of a survey showing that members of the armed services planned to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama by a factor of nearly three to one–this at a time when the Democratic nominee was handily beating his Republican rival in almost all national polls. The survey apparently reaffirmed the long-held conventional wisdom that the U.S. military overwhelmingly backs the GOP. . . .

The truth about the military’s politics, however, is more complex and all too often obscured by narrowly focused polling. Participants in the Military Times survey, for example, tended to be white, older, and more senior in rank–that is, they were hardly a representative sampling of the armed services. . . .

snip

It is true that the upper echelons of the military tilt right. My own research confirmed that about two-thirds of majors and higher-ranking officers identify as conservative, as previous studies found. But that tilt becomes far less pronounced when you expand the pool of respondents. That is because only 32 percent of the Army’s enlisted soldiers consider themselves conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and the remaining 45 percent are self-described moderates. These numbers closely mirror the ideological predilections of the civilian population. . . .

The political differences between officers and enlisted personnel can be partly explained by a demographic divide. Whereas officers are predominantly white, have at least a bachelor’s degree, and draw incomes that place them in the middle or upper-middle class, the enlisted ranks have a higher proportion of minorities, make less money than officers, and typically enter service with only a high school diploma. Nevertheless, even when controlling for factors like race and gender, officers are significantly more likely than soldiers to identify as conservative. . . .

In addition to its ideological moderation, the Army is not as partisan as popularly portrayed. Whereas 65 percent of Americans think of themselves as either Republican or Democrat, according to the Annenberg survey, my study shows that only 43 percent of the military identifies with one of the two major political parties. Two out of three officers consider themselves either Republican or Democrat, but only 37 percent of enlisted personnel do so.

The Military Times released the results of a survey showing that members of the armed services planned to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama by a factor of nearly three to one–this at a time when the Democratic nominee was handily beating his Republican rival in almost all national polls. The survey apparently reaffirmed the long-held conventional wisdom that the U.S. military overwhelmingly backs the GOP. . . .

The truth about the military’s politics, however, is more complex and all too often obscured by narrowly focused polling. Participants in the Military Times survey, for example, tended to be white, older, and more senior in rank–that is, they were hardly a representative sampling of the armed services. . . .

snip

It is true that the upper echelons of the military tilt right. My own research confirmed that about two-thirds of majors and higher-ranking officers identify as conservative, as previous studies found. But that tilt becomes far less pronounced when you expand the pool of respondents. That is because only 32 percent of the Army’s enlisted soldiers consider themselves conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and the remaining 45 percent are self-described moderates. These numbers closely mirror the ideological predilections of the civilian population. . . .

The political differences between officers and enlisted personnel can be partly explained by a demographic divide. Whereas officers are predominantly white, have at least a bachelor’s degree, and draw incomes that place them in the middle or upper-middle class, the enlisted ranks have a higher proportion of minorities, make less money than officers, and typically enter service with only a high school diploma. Nevertheless, even when controlling for factors like race and gender, officers are significantly more likely than soldiers to identify as conservative. . . .

In addition to its ideological moderation, the Army is not as partisan as popularly portrayed. Whereas 65 percent of Americans think of themselves as either Republican or Democrat, according to the Annenberg survey, my study shows that only 43 percent of the military identifies with one of the two major political parties. Two out of three officers consider themselves either Republican or Democrat, but only 37 percent of enlisted personnel do so.

All of this blah, blah, blah is fine, but the bottom line is it's darned difficult for military to vote. They're putting their very lives on the line and yet being disenfranchised partially because of the perception that they won't vote for the dems. Can you imagine the screaming if this were done to any other group of voters? As has been said earlier, we are taking a big chance of illegals voting, folks who aren't properly registered, multiple voting, folks without ID's, but the rules and regs make it difficult for the military to vote.

I will still hate it if Obama wins again, but won't be as livid if he won fair and square, not without all the usual tricks.

‎" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world.""A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"

Crocodiles are easy. They try to kill & eat you. People are harder. Sometimes they pretend to be your friend first.” Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter

It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes. Gandhi

Originally Posted by Carol

When I judge someone's integrity one key thing I look at is - How does s/he treat people s/he doesn't agree with or does not like?
I can respect someone who I do not agree with, but I have NO respect for someone who puts others down in a public forum. That is the hallmark of someone who has no integrity, and cannot be trusted.

But it has no qualms about the disenfranchisement of military voters overseas through its failure to comply with and enforce the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Because of that law, it's not supposed to be as hard for military voters to cast their ballots. Of course, we know from several examples that Obama is a president who only enforces laws when they personally benefit him. If they don't, then he either drags his feet or simply refrains from enforcing them.